Delhi Court Rejects Advocate Vikram Singh Chauhan’s Defamation Suit Over 2016 JNU Coverage, Says Claim Is Time-Barred

The suit arose from media coverage of incidents that took place at Patiala House Courts on February 15 and 17, 2016, during hearings related to the JNU sedition controversy. Chauhan alleged that various media organisations falsely portrayed him as a "gunda lawyer", "goon" and "hooligan", thereby causing irreparable damage to his professional reputation.

He sought directions for the removal of the allegedly defamatory content from online platforms, an unconditional public apology from the defendants, and Re. 1 as damages.

According to Chauhan, the continued availability of the reports online caused lasting harm, including the loss of a client in 2022 and his defeat in the election for the post of Honorary Secretary of the New Delhi Bar Association (NDBA).

The defendants opposed the suit, contending that claims for compensation in defamation are governed by the one-year limitation period prescribed under the Limitation Act. They further argued that the plaint failed to disclose a valid cause of action and did not specify the exact defamatory statements allegedly published.

Accepting these objections, the Court observed that Chauhan had failed to plead or demonstrate that any of the defendants had republished or recirculated the allegedly defamatory material within the limitation period.

The Court noted that the plaintiff's assertions regarding the loss of a client and his defeat in the 2022 NDBA elections were vague and unsupported by material particulars. It found that Chauhan had neither identified the prospective client nor explained how the publications influenced the client's decision or the election outcome.

Rejecting the argument that the online availability of the reports amounted to a continuing wrong, the Court held that mere accessibility of material on the internet does not constitute republication or give rise to a fresh cause of action every time it is viewed.

"The plaint only discloses continuing consequences of the alleged publication that had admittedly taken place several years prior to the institution of the present suit and fails to disclose any legally sustainable fresh cause of action within the period prescribed under the law of limitation," the Court observed.

Having concluded that the suit was barred by limitation, the Court held that examining the defendants' remaining objections would merely be an academic exercise.

Accordingly, the Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC and disposed of the applications filed by the defendants. All pending applications, including Chauhan's plea for interim injunction, were also dismissed as infructuous.

In a related news, in November 2025, the Delhi High Court had quashed a criminal defamation complaint filed against journalist Arnab Goswami by lawyer Vikram Singh Chauhan over allegedly defamatory remarks made on a news channel in 2016. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while pronouncing the verdict, set aside both the criminal defamation complaint and the summons issued against Goswami and two former officials of the TV channel, Shrijeet Ramakant Mishra and Samir Jain.